From: Subject: Industrial Wind Energy Opposition Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:13:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.aweo.org/Roberson.html X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Industrial Wind Energy Opposition
Questioning the = faith of wind=20 power

David Roberson, March 17, 2005=20
Originally published in the Shelburne Falls (Mass.) = Independent,=20 December 23, 2004


Development of wind power plants is = swiftly=20 becoming the most critical rural conservation and land-use issue of = our time.=20 But many who support wind power are sadly unaware of the technology's = serious=20 impacts and have accepted on faith the seductive vision offered by the = industry: that wind power is clean, green energy.

We are led = to=20 believe that construction of wind plants is progressive and = ecologically=20 responsible development that will lessen our reliance on foreign oil = and=20 reduce global warming. Opponents are often dismissed as elitists who = care more=20 for the appearance of the landscape than for saving the planet. For = some=20 folks, it seems, if you aren't into wind power then you are an=20 "anti-environmentalist." That is untrue, and I find it disturbing that = this=20 attitude seems so prevalent.

I don't like to represent myself = as an=20 exemplar of any green ideal, but I feel a deep personal connection to = nature.=20 My wife and I garden organically, raise much of our own meat and = dairy, and=20 try to live simply and sustainably. We heat our home almost = exclusively with=20 wood that I cut on our land.

When we left our rented home in = Hawley,=20 where we lived for 12 years without AC electricity, and moved to Rowe, = one of=20 my first thoughts was to put up a wind generator, get some batteries = and an=20 inverter, and continue to live independent of the power company. =

After=20 I pondered and researched the matter, I came to feel that erecting a = wind=20 generator to power my grid-connected house would amount to a noisy, = expensive=20 eyesore that would represent nothing more than a symbolic commitment = to an=20 ideal.

Now, I feel the same way about large-scale wind. =

We are=20 asked -- expected, really -- to take it on faith that the = environmental=20 benefit of wind energy is worth the cost. The problem is, wind power = won't=20 deliver what is promised.

Electricity is produced from a = variety of=20 sources in this country, but oil simply isn't a significant supplier = to our=20 electrical mix, accounting for less than 2 1/2 percent of U.S. = generation --=20 and even this small fraction is unlikely to be impacted by wind plant=20 development.

Beyond this, those who think that we face a = choice=20 between turbines and smokestacks or nuclear plants are kidding = themselves. The=20 erratic nature of the wind means that turbines simply cannot supply = the base=20 load that other forms of generation do. Those other generators will = continue=20 to be needed to back up the wildly variable output of wind turbines, = with the=20 probability that in so doing these plants will actually emit more = pollution=20 for each kilowatt-hour they generate than if they were allowed to = operate=20 normally.

In Denmark the vast majority of their wind-generated = electricity has to be exported to neighboring countries at a deep = discount,=20 and they are then forced to re-import expensive nuclear power. This = has led in=20 part to that country having among the highest electric rates in = Europe, and=20 Danish carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise. In Germany, wind = plants are=20 widely regretted for the brutal destruction they have inflicted where = they=20 have come to dominate the landscape.

What is worse, giant wind = plants=20 produce very little electricity. The Hoosac Wind project proposed for = the=20 towns of Monroe and Florida, with 20 turbines -- each 340 feet high -- = spread=20 out over 1,500 acres and miles of ridge on two mountains, might = optimistically=20 produce 14/100 of 1 percent of the electricity used in Massachusetts = annually.=20 A hundred and twenty such turbines spiking our ridges would likely = produce=20 less than one percent of the electricity used in the state, while that = electrical use is going up by around 2 percent -- more than twice as = much --=20 every year. Even if we were to construct new wind towers as fast as we = possibly could -- in the process transforming western Massachusetts = into a=20 science-fiction landscape bristling with enormous black-bladed = turbines, lit=20 day and night with flashing strobes -- we wouldn't even begin to keep = up.=20

The wind industry assures us that wind power will help prevent = global=20 warming by reducing carbon dioxide produced by other forms of electric = generation. Enxco, the company backing Hoosac Wind, has offered = improbably=20 optimistic projections of how much carbon dioxide emission might be = avoided by=20 the operation of the plant.

But even if we take their figures = at face=20 value, they amount to a mere 23/100ths of 1 percent of that fraction = of carbon=20 dioxide that results from electricity generation in Massachusetts, or = about=20 8/10,000ths of 1 percent of US anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse = gas=20 emissions. In this country, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from = electrical=20 generation are outweighed by other man-made sources 2-to-1, while=20 anthropogenic emissions as a whole account for about 3 percent of the = world=20 total; the remaining 97 percent comes from natural sources such as = oceans and=20 bogs.

In a nutshell: Hoosac Wind's potential contribution to = reducing=20 greenhouse gas emissions, when taken in a broader context, is almost=20 incalculably small.

Unfortunately, for some people the = inconvenient=20 truths about wind energy will be too uncomfortable to contemplate. = "It's the=20 vision, not the view," they'll say, insisting that the turbines have a = symbolic value that trumps their negative impacts on wildlife, on = rural=20 economies, and on the quality of life of residents forced to live with = them.=20 Wind plant proponents know that having secured the hearts of much of = the=20 public in this way, reasoned opposition to their plans to = industrialize vast=20 swaths of rural America can be marginalized -- and they are spending = enormous=20 amounts of money to do just that.

The real reason that = multinational=20 entities are intent on constructing wind towers is the combination of = generous=20 tax credits and depreciation allowances that are provided for these=20 developments. Huge corporations like Enxco parent EDF -- the French = energy=20 conglomerate that is the largest operator of nuclear reactors in the = world, as=20 well as Europe's leading trader of coal, gas, and oil -- consequently = form=20 unlikely alliances with organizations that have historically = championed=20 preservation. The beauty and ecological integrity of our few remaining = wild=20 places is thus sacrificed to a green idealism.

To see the = future of=20 the wind debate in America, it's instructive to look overseas. In the = United=20 Kingdom, central government policies promoting wind development have = sparked a=20 wave of outrage and opposition in rural areas targeted for massive = wind=20 plants.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has lent his support to = opponents of=20 one wind power proposal among his home constituency, while his = government has=20 issued policy that hobbles the ability of other communities to reject = wind=20 plants. His attitude mirrors our own Governor Mitt Romney's = hypocritical=20 opposition to wind power, which apparently applies only to Nantucket = Sound.=20 Meanwhile, the director appointed by the governor to the state's = highest=20 environmental authority has stated that her decision not to require an = environmental impact report for Hoosac Wind "will set the tone for = further=20 development of wind power" in inland Massachusetts.

It appears = the=20 scenario in Britain is poised to repeat itself here. Rural communities = -- from=20 the Gasp=E9 Peninsula in Qu=E9bec straight down the Appalachian range = to the=20 Allegheny Front -- are destined for thousands of turbines if current = plans=20 materialize, and Franklin County is in the center of the crosshairs, = with the=20 construction of the largest wind plant in New England possibly = beginning here=20 next year. While developers offer glib assurances that their projects = are=20 beneficial, those questioning these facilities believe that the issues = surrounding renewable energy deserve critical and substantive debate, = not=20 sloganeering.

[Editor's note: Mr. = Roberson has=20 informed me that the promotion of industrial wind power in = Massachusetts=20 includes a push for the creation of more municipal utilities, which = are=20 miraculously exempt from local zoning restrictions.] =

[ www.aweo.org ]
American Wind Energy Association opponents, = wind farm=20 opposition; negative effects, impact, aspects, environmental costs of = wind=20 energy, wind turbines, & wind towers; windfarm information; windfarm = debate;=20 anti-wind, anti-windmill campaign; electricity, noise, birds, bats, = blades,=20 denmark, germany, california, vermont, efficiency, conservation, wind = farm=20 action groups; anti-wind campaigns